Charandeep Singh Sandhu v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ORS
! "#$ % &' Date of Decision: 06th March, 2019 Charandeep Singh .....Appellant versus Chairman"cum"Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala and others .....Respondents &( )&
*+ *&
, * )&
*
, Present :
Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sehaj Bir Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.4.
**** + *&
, * This intra"court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellant herein. 2.
The appellant invoked the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following main reliefs:" ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with inquiry on the basis of a anonymous/pseudonymous complaint (Annexure P"1). iii) It is further prayed that during pendency of the writ petition any inquiry on the basis of any complaint (Annexure P"1) may kindly be stayed.
3.
The aforesaid reliefs were claimed in the back ground of the facts that he is an adhoc Junior Engineer in the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and is working for the last 18 years and during his whole career there was not even a single complaint made by any public
LPA No. 1851 of 2018 2 person and the complaint in question was got filed by respondent No.4, who is a Deputy Chief Engineer, deliberately and malafidely. The ground for challenge was that the respondents"authorities cannot hold an enquiry into an anonymous/pseudonymous complaint in view of the instructions of the government and as such the complaint is not liable to be entertained. 4.
Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the government instructions being relied upon itself provide that if there is some substance in some complaint, it should be looked into and finding that the department was only conducting a fact finding enquiry into the allegations. When the appeal was taken in motion hearing, the following order was passed on 27.11.2018:"
!
" " # "
" $
#
%& %' '(()
#
#
#
"
"
# " "
" "
$ # # !
$
#
"
#
$ "
#
"
" !
" " " "
#
* + , # -
.
$ " # !
#
$
#
/ ,
# / ,
#
LPA No. 1851 of 2018 3
!
$
"
#
%1 %' '(%2
4
, $ 4
""
,
/ # 5 5.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Vigilance Department conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. A perusal of the same goes to show that the appellant herein has been found prima"facie guilty of certain charges leveled against him such as allowing a private person (lady) to perform official work in his office unofficially, as also the work of filling the cable box and other special works on need basis were being carried out by two private persons which fact was admitted by the appellant during the course of enquiry.
6.
Without commenting upon the merits of the vigilance enquiry report, as the same may prejudice the case of either of the parties, we do not feel the matter requires any interference and it is for the concerned department to take a decision with regard to any action in the matter. 7.
We find no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition which may require any interference.
8.
The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
(KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 6th March,2019 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√